Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 601

control, N = 301

treatment, N = 301

p-value2

age

60

50.74 ± 12.68 (25 - 74)

49.94 ± 13.15 (25 - 74)

51.53 ± 12.37 (31 - 72)

0.631

gender

60

0.781

f

41 (68%)

20 (67%)

21 (70%)

m

19 (32%)

10 (33%)

9 (30%)

occupation

60

0.945

day_training

1 (1.7%)

1 (3.3%)

0 (0%)

full_time

6 (10%)

4 (13%)

2 (6.7%)

homemaker

4 (6.7%)

2 (6.7%)

2 (6.7%)

other

2 (3.3%)

0 (0%)

2 (6.7%)

part_time

10 (17%)

5 (17%)

5 (17%)

retired

15 (25%)

7 (23%)

8 (27%)

self_employ

2 (3.3%)

1 (3.3%)

1 (3.3%)

student

1 (1.7%)

0 (0%)

1 (3.3%)

t_and_e

2 (3.3%)

1 (3.3%)

1 (3.3%)

unemploy

17 (28%)

9 (30%)

8 (27%)

marital

60

>0.999

cohabitation

1 (1.7%)

0 (0%)

1 (3.3%)

divore

5 (8.3%)

3 (10%)

2 (6.7%)

married

13 (22%)

6 (20%)

7 (23%)

none

35 (58%)

18 (60%)

17 (57%)

seperation

3 (5.0%)

2 (6.7%)

1 (3.3%)

widow

3 (5.0%)

1 (3.3%)

2 (6.7%)

edu

60

0.915

bachelor

19 (32%)

9 (30%)

10 (33%)

diploma

9 (15%)

6 (20%)

3 (10%)

hd_ad

3 (5.0%)

2 (6.7%)

1 (3.3%)

postgraduate

6 (10%)

3 (10%)

3 (10%)

primary

4 (6.7%)

1 (3.3%)

3 (10%)

secondary_1_3

4 (6.7%)

2 (6.7%)

2 (6.7%)

secondary_4_5

14 (23%)

7 (23%)

7 (23%)

secondary_6_7

1 (1.7%)

0 (0%)

1 (3.3%)

fam_income

60

0.873

10001_12000

3 (5.0%)

1 (3.3%)

2 (6.7%)

12001_14000

4 (6.7%)

2 (6.7%)

2 (6.7%)

14001_16000

5 (8.3%)

2 (6.7%)

3 (10%)

16001_18000

2 (3.3%)

1 (3.3%)

1 (3.3%)

18001_20000

3 (5.0%)

3 (10%)

0 (0%)

20001_above

9 (15%)

6 (20%)

3 (10%)

2001_4000

6 (10%)

3 (10%)

3 (10%)

4001_6000

9 (15%)

4 (13%)

5 (17%)

6001_8000

6 (10%)

3 (10%)

3 (10%)

8001_10000

4 (6.7%)

1 (3.3%)

3 (10%)

below_2000

9 (15%)

4 (13%)

5 (17%)

medication

60

50 (83%)

26 (87%)

24 (80%)

0.488

onset_duration

60

14.98 ± 12.00 (0 - 56)

16.98 ± 13.26 (1 - 56)

12.98 ± 10.43 (0 - 35)

0.199

onset_age

60

35.76 ± 13.62 (15 - 64)

32.96 ± 12.16 (16 - 55)

38.55 ± 14.61 (15 - 64)

0.113

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 601

control, N = 301

treatment, N = 301

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

60

3.25 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

3.20 ± 1.24 (1 - 5)

3.30 ± 1.18 (1 - 5)

0.750

recovery_stage_b

60

17.93 ± 2.63 (9 - 23)

17.83 ± 2.84 (9 - 23)

18.03 ± 2.44 (14 - 23)

0.771

ras_confidence

60

30.23 ± 4.66 (19 - 40)

29.73 ± 4.27 (19 - 40)

30.73 ± 5.04 (20 - 39)

0.410

ras_willingness

60

12.10 ± 1.98 (7 - 15)

12.00 ± 1.78 (9 - 15)

12.20 ± 2.19 (7 - 15)

0.699

ras_goal

60

17.43 ± 2.82 (12 - 24)

17.47 ± 2.69 (12 - 23)

17.40 ± 2.99 (12 - 24)

0.928

ras_reliance

60

13.28 ± 2.86 (8 - 20)

13.03 ± 2.68 (8 - 18)

13.53 ± 3.06 (8 - 20)

0.504

ras_domination

60

10.02 ± 2.23 (3 - 15)

10.53 ± 1.87 (7 - 15)

9.50 ± 2.46 (3 - 14)

0.072

symptom

60

29.95 ± 9.69 (14 - 56)

29.70 ± 9.11 (14 - 48)

30.20 ± 10.39 (15 - 56)

0.844

slof_work

60

22.35 ± 4.85 (10 - 30)

22.40 ± 4.45 (15 - 30)

22.30 ± 5.30 (10 - 30)

0.937

slof_relationship

60

25.67 ± 5.94 (11 - 35)

25.33 ± 6.07 (13 - 35)

26.00 ± 5.90 (11 - 35)

0.668

satisfaction

60

20.80 ± 6.42 (5 - 30)

19.37 ± 5.95 (5 - 29)

22.23 ± 6.65 (5 - 30)

0.084

mhc_emotional

60

11.25 ± 3.68 (4 - 18)

10.97 ± 3.03 (6 - 17)

11.53 ± 4.26 (4 - 18)

0.555

mhc_social

60

14.48 ± 5.08 (6 - 26)

14.73 ± 5.12 (7 - 26)

14.23 ± 5.11 (6 - 23)

0.706

mhc_psychological

60

21.90 ± 5.90 (6 - 36)

21.50 ± 5.61 (10 - 33)

22.30 ± 6.25 (6 - 36)

0.604

resilisnce

60

16.42 ± 4.57 (6 - 25)

16.07 ± 4.53 (6 - 24)

16.77 ± 4.65 (7 - 25)

0.557

social_provision

60

13.70 ± 3.00 (5 - 20)

13.40 ± 2.67 (8 - 20)

14.00 ± 3.31 (5 - 19)

0.443

els_value_living

60

17.15 ± 2.94 (5 - 23)

16.67 ± 2.50 (12 - 22)

17.63 ± 3.31 (5 - 23)

0.206

els_life_fulfill

60

12.78 ± 3.26 (4 - 18)

11.73 ± 3.11 (5 - 17)

13.83 ± 3.11 (4 - 18)

0.011

els

60

29.93 ± 5.50 (9 - 40)

28.40 ± 4.53 (20 - 36)

31.47 ± 6.02 (9 - 40)

0.030

social_connect

60

26.87 ± 9.35 (8 - 48)

27.17 ± 8.07 (8 - 45)

26.57 ± 10.61 (8 - 48)

0.806

shs_agency

60

14.28 ± 4.64 (3 - 21)

13.50 ± 4.26 (3 - 20)

15.07 ± 4.93 (3 - 21)

0.193

shs_pathway

60

16.58 ± 3.72 (4 - 22)

15.97 ± 3.45 (8 - 22)

17.20 ± 3.94 (4 - 22)

0.202

shs

60

30.87 ± 7.81 (7 - 42)

29.47 ± 7.27 (14 - 41)

32.27 ± 8.19 (7 - 42)

0.167

esteem

60

12.52 ± 1.23 (10 - 15)

12.57 ± 1.14 (10 - 14)

12.47 ± 1.33 (10 - 15)

0.755

mlq_search

60

14.90 ± 3.45 (3 - 21)

14.93 ± 3.30 (6 - 21)

14.87 ± 3.66 (3 - 20)

0.941

mlq_presence

60

13.50 ± 4.11 (3 - 21)

13.60 ± 3.39 (6 - 20)

13.40 ± 4.79 (3 - 21)

0.853

mlq

60

28.40 ± 6.72 (6 - 41)

28.53 ± 5.96 (12 - 40)

28.27 ± 7.50 (6 - 41)

0.879

empower

60

19.57 ± 4.23 (6 - 28)

19.17 ± 3.83 (11 - 24)

19.97 ± 4.62 (6 - 28)

0.468

ismi_resistance

60

14.62 ± 2.76 (5 - 20)

14.47 ± 2.30 (11 - 19)

14.77 ± 3.18 (5 - 20)

0.677

ismi_discrimation

60

11.35 ± 3.38 (5 - 19)

12.27 ± 2.92 (5 - 18)

10.43 ± 3.61 (5 - 19)

0.035

sss_affective

60

10.00 ± 4.03 (3 - 18)

10.67 ± 3.50 (3 - 18)

9.33 ± 4.47 (3 - 18)

0.203

sss_behavior

60

9.73 ± 4.12 (3 - 18)

10.60 ± 4.02 (3 - 18)

8.87 ± 4.10 (3 - 18)

0.104

sss_cognitive

60

8.28 ± 4.15 (3 - 18)

8.60 ± 4.34 (3 - 18)

7.97 ± 4.00 (3 - 18)

0.559

sss

60

28.02 ± 11.42 (9 - 54)

29.87 ± 10.56 (9 - 54)

26.17 ± 12.11 (9 - 54)

0.212

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.20

0.220

2.77, 3.63

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.100

0.311

-0.509, 0.709

0.748

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.296

0.338

-0.366, 0.959

0.385

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.025

0.463

-0.932, 0.881

0.957

Pseudo R square

0.014

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.8

0.499

16.9, 18.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.200

0.706

-1.18, 1.58

0.778

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.099

0.692

-1.46, 1.26

0.887

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.556

0.944

-1.29, 2.41

0.559

Pseudo R square

0.009

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.7

0.913

27.9, 31.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.00

1.291

-1.53, 3.53

0.441

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.513

0.985

-1.42, 2.44

0.606

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.048

1.338

-2.57, 2.67

0.971

Pseudo R square

0.013

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

12.0

0.370

11.3, 12.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.200

0.523

-0.824, 1.22

0.703

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.863

0.361

-1.57, -0.156

0.022

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.688

0.490

-0.272, 1.65

0.169

Pseudo R square

0.031

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.5

0.563

16.4, 18.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.067

0.796

-1.63, 1.49

0.933

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.845

0.621

-2.06, 0.372

0.181

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.47

0.844

-0.184, 3.12

0.089

Pseudo R square

0.018

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.0

0.515

12.0, 14.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.500

0.728

-0.927, 1.93

0.494

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.242

0.466

-0.671, 1.15

0.607

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.720

0.632

-0.520, 1.96

0.262

Pseudo R square

0.033

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.5

0.403

9.74, 11.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.03

0.571

-2.15, 0.085

0.074

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.497

0.541

-1.56, 0.565

0.364

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.30

0.738

-0.142, 2.75

0.084

Pseudo R square

0.037

symptom

(Intercept)

29.7

1.789

26.2, 33.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.500

2.530

-4.46, 5.46

0.844

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.645

1.267

-3.13, 1.84

0.614

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.172

1.719

-3.54, 3.20

0.921

Pseudo R square

0.002

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.4

0.895

20.6, 24.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.100

1.266

-2.58, 2.38

0.937

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.120

0.707

-1.51, 1.27

0.867

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.20

0.959

-3.08, 0.681

0.220

Pseudo R square

0.012

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.3

1.083

23.2, 27.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.667

1.532

-2.34, 3.67

0.665

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.19

1.009

-3.16, 0.791

0.248

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.524

1.370

-2.16, 3.21

0.704

Pseudo R square

0.011

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.4

1.221

17.0, 21.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.87

1.726

-0.517, 6.25

0.101

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.918

1.374

-1.78, 3.61

0.508

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.80

1.869

-5.46, 1.86

0.342

Pseudo R square

0.031

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

11.0

0.672

9.65, 12.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.567

0.950

-1.30, 2.43

0.553

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.722

0.637

-0.525, 1.97

0.264

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.29

0.864

-2.99, 0.401

0.144

Pseudo R square

0.007

mhc_social

(Intercept)

14.7

0.973

12.8, 16.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.500

1.376

-3.20, 2.20

0.717

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.29

1.072

-0.813, 3.39

0.237

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.44

1.457

-4.30, 1.41

0.329

Pseudo R square

0.015

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.5

1.143

19.3, 23.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.800

1.617

-2.37, 3.97

0.622

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.01

1.187

-1.32, 3.33

0.402

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.16

1.613

-5.32, 1.01

0.189

Pseudo R square

0.007

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.1

0.802

14.5, 17.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.700

1.134

-1.52, 2.92

0.539

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.593

0.757

-0.890, 2.08

0.439

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.116

1.028

-1.90, 2.13

0.911

Pseudo R square

0.013

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.4

0.537

12.3, 14.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.600

0.760

-0.889, 2.09

0.432

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.433

0.577

-1.56, 0.697

0.457

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.270

0.784

-1.27, 1.81

0.732

Pseudo R square

0.016

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.7

0.536

15.6, 17.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.967

0.759

-0.520, 2.45

0.207

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.636

0.550

-0.441, 1.71

0.254

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.483

0.747

-1.95, 0.981

0.522

Pseudo R square

0.024

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

11.7

0.550

10.7, 12.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.10

0.778

0.574, 3.63

0.009

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.15

0.575

0.027, 2.28

0.052

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.953

0.781

-2.48, 0.577

0.230

Pseudo R square

0.095

els

(Intercept)

28.4

0.967

26.5, 30.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.07

1.367

0.388, 5.75

0.028

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.71

0.930

-0.112, 3.53

0.074

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.35

1.262

-3.83, 1.12

0.290

Pseudo R square

0.069

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.2

1.681

23.9, 30.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.600

2.377

-5.26, 4.06

0.802

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.620

1.337

-2.00, 3.24

0.646

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.491

1.814

-4.05, 3.06

0.788

Pseudo R square

0.002

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.5

0.848

11.8, 15.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.57

1.200

-0.785, 3.92

0.196

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.407

0.860

-1.28, 2.09

0.639

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.205

1.168

-2.08, 2.49

0.861

Pseudo R square

0.034

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.0

0.669

14.7, 17.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.23

0.947

-0.622, 3.09

0.197

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.595

0.600

-0.581, 1.77

0.328

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.777

0.814

-2.37, 0.819

0.347

Pseudo R square

0.020

shs

(Intercept)

29.5

1.411

26.7, 32.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.80

1.995

-1.11, 6.71

0.165

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.943

1.287

-1.58, 3.47

0.469

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.490

1.748

-3.91, 2.94

0.781

Pseudo R square

0.031

esteem

(Intercept)

12.6

0.223

12.1, 13.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.100

0.316

-0.718, 0.518

0.752

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.612

0.379

-0.130, 1.35

0.113

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.349

0.520

-1.37, 0.670

0.505

Pseudo R square

0.039

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.9

0.635

13.7, 16.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.067

0.898

-1.83, 1.69

0.941

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.032

0.804

-1.61, 1.54

0.968

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.099

1.094

-2.24, 2.05

0.928

Pseudo R square

0.000

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.6

0.741

12.1, 15.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.200

1.048

-2.25, 1.85

0.849

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.028

0.891

-1.72, 1.77

0.975

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.100

1.213

-2.28, 2.48

0.935

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq

(Intercept)

28.5

1.247

26.1, 31.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.267

1.764

-3.72, 3.19

0.880

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.013

1.522

-3.00, 2.97

0.993

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.000

2.072

-4.06, 4.06

1.00

Pseudo R square

0.000

empower

(Intercept)

19.2

0.741

17.7, 20.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.800

1.048

-1.25, 2.85

0.448

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.168

0.712

-1.23, 1.56

0.814

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.894

0.967

-2.79, 1.00

0.361

Pseudo R square

0.007

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.5

0.474

13.5, 15.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.300

0.671

-1.01, 1.61

0.656

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.554

0.665

-0.749, 1.86

0.409

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.650

0.907

-2.43, 1.13

0.477

Pseudo R square

0.005

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.3

0.607

11.1, 13.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.83

0.858

-3.52, -0.151

0.036

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.936

0.597

-2.11, 0.234

0.126

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.48

0.811

-0.109, 3.07

0.077

Pseudo R square

0.049

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.7

0.706

9.28, 12.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.33

0.998

-3.29, 0.623

0.186

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.019

0.601

-1.16, 1.20

0.975

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.839

0.816

-2.44, 0.761

0.311

Pseudo R square

0.049

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.6

0.715

9.20, 12.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.73

1.011

-3.71, 0.247

0.091

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.302

0.650

-1.58, 0.972

0.645

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.360

0.883

-2.09, 1.37

0.686

Pseudo R square

0.059

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.60

0.745

7.14, 10.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.633

1.053

-2.70, 1.43

0.550

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.871

0.610

-0.325, 2.07

0.163

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.66

0.828

-3.28, -0.037

0.053

Pseudo R square

0.031

sss

(Intercept)

29.9

2.006

25.9, 33.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-3.70

2.837

-9.26, 1.86

0.197

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.657

1.542

-2.36, 3.68

0.673

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.93

2.091

-7.02, 1.17

0.171

Pseudo R square

0.050

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.29) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.77, 3.63], t(87) = 14.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.71], t(87) = 0.32, p = 0.748; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.96], t(87) = 0.88, p = 0.381; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.80])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.88], t(87) = -0.05, p = 0.956; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.74])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.99e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.83 (95% CI [16.85, 18.81], t(87) = 35.72, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-1.18, 1.58], t(87) = 0.28, p = 0.777; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.46, 1.26], t(87) = -0.14, p = 0.886; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-1.29, 2.41], t(87) = 0.59, p = 0.556; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.89])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.73 (95% CI [27.94, 31.52], t(87) = 32.58, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-1.53, 3.53], t(87) = 0.77, p = 0.438; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.44], t(87) = 0.52, p = 0.603; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.49])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-2.57, 2.67], t(87) = 0.04, p = 0.971; Std. beta = 9.70e-03, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.00 (95% CI [11.28, 12.72], t(87) = 32.47, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.82, 1.22], t(87) = 0.38, p = 0.702; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.61])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.86, 95% CI [-1.57, -0.16], t(87) = -2.39, p = 0.017; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.78, -0.08])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.65], t(87) = 1.40, p = 0.160; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.82])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.47 (95% CI [16.36, 18.57], t(87) = 31.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.63, 1.49], t(87) = -0.08, p = 0.933; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-2.06, 0.37], t(87) = -1.36, p = 0.173; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [-0.18, 3.12], t(87) = 1.74, p = 0.081; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.00])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.03 (95% CI [12.02, 14.04], t(87) = 25.32, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.93], t(87) = 0.69, p = 0.492; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.66])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.15], t(87) = 0.52, p = 0.604; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.96], t(87) = 1.14, p = 0.255; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.67])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.53 (95% CI [9.74, 11.32], t(87) = 26.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-2.15, 0.09], t(87) = -1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-0.97, 0.04])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.56], t(87) = -0.92, p = 0.359; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.30, 95% CI [-0.14, 2.75], t(87) = 1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.76e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.70 (95% CI [26.19, 33.21], t(87) = 16.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-4.46, 5.46], t(87) = 0.20, p = 0.843; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-3.13, 1.84], t(87) = -0.51, p = 0.611; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-3.54, 3.20], t(87) = -0.10, p = 0.920; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.40 (95% CI [20.65, 24.15], t(87) = 25.03, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-2.58, 2.38], t(87) = -0.08, p = 0.937; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.27], t(87) = -0.17, p = 0.866; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.20, 95% CI [-3.08, 0.68], t(87) = -1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.14])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.33 (95% CI [23.21, 27.46], t(87) = 23.38, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-2.34, 3.67], t(87) = 0.44, p = 0.663; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.63])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.19, 95% CI [-3.16, 0.79], t(87) = -1.18, p = 0.240; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-2.16, 3.21], t(87) = 0.38, p = 0.702; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.55])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.37 (95% CI [16.97, 21.76], t(87) = 15.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.87, 95% CI [-0.52, 6.25], t(87) = 1.66, p = 0.097; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.92])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-1.78, 3.61], t(87) = 0.67, p = 0.504; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.53])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.80, 95% CI [-5.46, 1.86], t(87) = -0.96, p = 0.336; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.31e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.97 (95% CI [9.65, 12.28], t(87) = 16.33, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.30, 2.43], t(87) = 0.60, p = 0.551; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.67])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.53, 1.97], t(87) = 1.13, p = 0.256; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.54])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-2.99, 0.40], t(87) = -1.50, p = 0.135; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.11])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.73 (95% CI [12.83, 16.64], t(87) = 15.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-3.20, 2.20], t(87) = -0.36, p = 0.716; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.29, 95% CI [-0.81, 3.39], t(87) = 1.20, p = 0.230; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.64])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.44, 95% CI [-4.30, 1.41], t(87) = -0.99, p = 0.322; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.50 (95% CI [19.26, 23.74], t(87) = 18.81, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-2.37, 3.97], t(87) = 0.49, p = 0.621; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.63])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-1.32, 3.33], t(87) = 0.85, p = 0.397; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.53])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.16, 95% CI [-5.32, 1.01], t(87) = -1.34, p = 0.181; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.16])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.07 (95% CI [14.50, 17.64], t(87) = 20.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-1.52, 2.92], t(87) = 0.62, p = 0.537; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.67])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.89, 2.08], t(87) = 0.78, p = 0.433; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.48])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-1.90, 2.13], t(87) = 0.11, p = 0.910; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.40 (95% CI [12.35, 14.45], t(87) = 24.95, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.89, 2.09], t(87) = 0.79, p = 0.430; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.70], t(87) = -0.75, p = 0.452; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.81], t(87) = 0.34, p = 0.730; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.67 (95% CI [15.62, 17.72], t(87) = 31.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.52, 2.45], t(87) = 1.27, p = 0.203; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.82])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.71], t(87) = 1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.57])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.95, 0.98], t(87) = -0.65, p = 0.518; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.73 (95% CI [10.65, 12.81], t(87) = 21.31, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.10, 95% CI [0.57, 3.63], t(87) = 2.70, p = 0.007; Std. beta = 0.67, 95% CI [0.18, 1.16])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [0.03, 2.28], t(87) = 2.01, p = 0.045; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [8.52e-03, 0.73])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.95, 95% CI [-2.48, 0.58], t(87) = -1.22, p = 0.222; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.40 (95% CI [26.51, 30.29], t(87) = 29.38, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.07, 95% CI [0.39, 5.75], t(87) = 2.24, p = 0.025; Std. beta = 0.56, 95% CI [0.07, 1.04])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.71, 95% CI [-0.11, 3.53], t(87) = 1.84, p = 0.066; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.64])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.35, 95% CI [-3.83, 1.12], t(87) = -1.07, p = 0.283; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.22e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.17 (95% CI [23.87, 30.46], t(87) = 16.16, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-5.26, 4.06], t(87) = -0.25, p = 0.801; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-2.00, 3.24], t(87) = 0.46, p = 0.643; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-4.05, 3.06], t(87) = -0.27, p = 0.787; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.50 (95% CI [11.84, 15.16], t(87) = 15.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.57, 95% CI [-0.79, 3.92], t(87) = 1.31, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.84])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-1.28, 2.09], t(87) = 0.47, p = 0.636; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-2.08, 2.49], t(87) = 0.18, p = 0.860; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.97 (95% CI [14.65, 17.28], t(87) = 23.85, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.23, 95% CI [-0.62, 3.09], t(87) = 1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.84])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.77], t(87) = 0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.48])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-2.37, 0.82], t(87) = -0.95, p = 0.340; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.47 (95% CI [26.70, 32.23], t(87) = 20.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.80, 95% CI [-1.11, 6.71], t(87) = 1.40, p = 0.161; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.86])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-1.58, 3.47], t(87) = 0.73, p = 0.464; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-3.91, 2.94], t(87) = -0.28, p = 0.779; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is weak (conditional R2 = 0.09) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.57 (95% CI [12.13, 13.00], t(87) = 56.33, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.52], t(87) = -0.32, p = 0.751; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.35], t(87) = 1.62, p = 0.106; Std. beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.10])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.37, 0.67], t(87) = -0.67, p = 0.502; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.55])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.15e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.93 (95% CI [13.69, 16.18], t(87) = 23.52, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.83, 1.69], t(87) = -0.07, p = 0.941; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.61, 1.54], t(87) = -0.04, p = 0.968; Std. beta = -9.50e-03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-2.24, 2.05], t(87) = -0.09, p = 0.928; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.25e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.60 (95% CI [12.15, 15.05], t(87) = 18.34, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-2.25, 1.85], t(87) = -0.19, p = 0.849; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.72, 1.77], t(87) = 0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = 7.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-2.28, 2.48], t(87) = 0.08, p = 0.934; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.62])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.87e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.53 (95% CI [26.09, 30.98], t(87) = 22.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-3.72, 3.19], t(87) = -0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-3.00, 2.97], t(87) = -8.58e-03, p = 0.993; Std. beta = -1.94e-03, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.50e-04, 95% CI [-4.06, 4.06], t(87) = -1.69e-04, p > .999; Std. beta = -5.19e-05, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.45e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.17 (95% CI [17.71, 20.62], t(87) = 25.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-1.25, 2.85], t(87) = 0.76, p = 0.445; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.23, 1.56], t(87) = 0.24, p = 0.813; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.89, 95% CI [-2.79, 1.00], t(87) = -0.92, p = 0.355; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.43) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.32e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.47 (95% CI [13.54, 15.40], t(87) = 30.51, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-1.01, 1.61], t(87) = 0.45, p = 0.655; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.63])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.86], t(87) = 0.83, p = 0.405; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.72])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-2.43, 1.13], t(87) = -0.72, p = 0.473; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.27 (95% CI [11.08, 13.46], t(87) = 20.21, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.83, 95% CI [-3.52, -0.15], t(87) = -2.14, p = 0.033; Std. beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-1.05, -0.05])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-2.11, 0.23], t(87) = -1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.07])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.48, 95% CI [-0.11, 3.07], t(87) = 1.82, p = 0.068; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.92])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.67 (95% CI [9.28, 12.05], t(87) = 15.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.33, 95% CI [-3.29, 0.62], t(87) = -1.34, p = 0.182; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.16])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.16, 1.20], t(87) = 0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = 4.79e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-2.44, 0.76], t(87) = -1.03, p = 0.304; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.60 (95% CI [9.20, 12.00], t(87) = 14.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.73, 95% CI [-3.71, 0.25], t(87) = -1.72, p = 0.086; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.06])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.58, 0.97], t(87) = -0.46, p = 0.642; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-2.09, 1.37], t(87) = -0.41, p = 0.684; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.60 (95% CI [7.14, 10.06], t(87) = 11.55, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-2.70, 1.43], t(87) = -0.60, p = 0.548; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.33, 2.07], t(87) = 1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.51])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.66, 95% CI [-3.28, -0.04], t(87) = -2.00, p = 0.045; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.82, -9.08e-03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.87 (95% CI [25.93, 33.80], t(87) = 14.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.70, 95% CI [-9.26, 1.86], t(87) = -1.30, p = 0.192; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.17])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-2.36, 3.68], t(87) = 0.43, p = 0.670; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.93, 95% CI [-7.02, 1.17], t(87) = -1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

299.315

306.913

-146.657

293.315

recovery_stage_a

random

6

303.602

318.797

-145.801

291.602

1.713

3

0.634

recovery_stage_b

null

3

446.734

454.331

-220.367

440.734

recovery_stage_b

random

6

451.813

467.009

-219.907

439.813

0.920

3

0.820

ras_confidence

null

3

545.714

553.311

-269.857

539.714

ras_confidence

random

6

550.304

565.499

-269.152

538.304

1.410

3

0.703

ras_willingness

null

3

376.220

383.817

-185.110

370.220

ras_willingness

random

6

376.194

391.390

-182.097

364.194

6.025

3

0.110

ras_goal

null

3

458.971

466.569

-226.486

452.971

ras_goal

random

6

461.633

476.829

-224.817

449.633

3.338

3

0.342

ras_reliance

null

3

433.594

441.192

-213.797

427.594

ras_reliance

random

6

433.191

448.386

-210.595

421.191

6.403

3

0.094

ras_domination

null

3

409.476

417.074

-201.738

403.476

ras_domination

random

6

410.565

425.761

-199.283

398.565

4.910

3

0.178

symptom

null

3

644.411

652.009

-319.206

638.411

symptom

random

6

649.592

664.787

-318.796

637.592

0.820

3

0.845

slof_work

null

3

525.936

533.534

-259.968

519.936

slof_work

random

6

527.628

542.824

-257.814

515.628

4.308

3

0.230

slof_relationship

null

3

569.536

577.134

-281.768

563.536

slof_relationship

random

6

573.383

588.579

-280.692

561.383

2.153

3

0.541

satisfaction

null

3

603.918

611.516

-298.959

597.918

satisfaction

random

6

606.875

622.071

-297.438

594.875

3.043

3

0.385

mhc_emotional

null

3

481.881

489.478

-237.940

475.881

mhc_emotional

random

6

485.546

500.741

-236.773

473.546

2.335

3

0.506

mhc_social

null

3

559.439

567.037

-276.720

553.439

mhc_social

random

6

563.428

578.623

-275.714

551.428

2.012

3

0.570

mhc_psychological

null

3

585.838

593.436

-289.919

579.838

mhc_psychological

random

6

589.946

605.141

-288.973

577.946

1.893

3

0.595

resilisnce

null

3

514.407

522.005

-254.203

508.407

resilisnce

random

6

518.188

533.384

-253.094

506.188

2.219

3

0.528

social_provision

null

3

446.975

454.573

-220.488

440.975

social_provision

random

6

451.412

466.607

-219.706

439.412

1.563

3

0.668

els_value_living

null

3

445.304

452.901

-219.652

439.304

els_value_living

random

6

448.442

463.638

-218.221

436.442

2.862

3

0.413

els_life_fulfill

null

3

458.495

466.093

-226.247

452.495

els_life_fulfill

random

6

454.325

469.520

-221.162

442.325

10.170

3

0.017

els

null

3

555.948

563.546

-274.974

549.948

els

random

6

554.120

569.316

-271.060

542.120

7.828

3

0.050

social_connect

null

3

639.652

647.250

-316.826

633.652

social_connect

random

6

645.310

660.506

-316.655

633.310

0.342

3

0.952

shs_agency

null

3

529.984

537.582

-261.992

523.984

shs_agency

random

6

533.020

548.216

-260.510

521.020

2.964

3

0.397

shs_pathway

null

3

477.855

485.453

-235.927

471.855

shs_pathway

random

6

481.468

496.663

-234.734

469.468

2.387

3

0.496

shs

null

3

617.937

625.535

-305.969

611.937

shs

random

6

621.252

636.448

-304.626

609.252

2.685

3

0.443

esteem

null

3

306.827

314.425

-150.413

300.827

esteem

random

6

309.008

324.203

-148.504

297.008

3.819

3

0.282

mlq_search

null

3

485.870

493.468

-239.935

479.870

mlq_search

random

6

491.820

507.015

-239.910

479.820

0.050

3

0.997

mlq_presence

null

3

511.897

519.495

-252.949

505.897

mlq_presence

random

6

517.841

533.037

-252.921

505.841

0.056

3

0.997

mlq

null

3

609.445

617.042

-301.722

603.445

mlq

random

6

615.418

630.613

-301.709

603.418

0.027

3

0.999

empower

null

3

500.277

507.875

-247.139

494.277

empower

random

6

504.658

519.854

-246.329

492.658

1.619

3

0.655

ismi_resistance

null

3

437.503

445.101

-215.752

431.503

ismi_resistance

random

6

442.733

457.929

-215.367

430.733

0.770

3

0.857

ismi_discrimation

null

3

469.376

476.973

-231.688

463.376

ismi_discrimation

random

6

468.952

484.148

-228.476

456.952

6.424

3

0.093

sss_affective

null

3

487.195

494.793

-240.597

481.195

sss_affective

random

6

488.198

503.393

-238.099

476.198

4.997

3

0.172

sss_behavior

null

3

493.699

501.297

-243.850

487.699

sss_behavior

random

6

494.566

509.761

-241.283

482.566

5.134

3

0.162

sss_cognitive

null

3

494.915

502.513

-244.458

488.915

sss_cognitive

random

6

495.772

510.967

-241.886

483.772

5.144

3

0.162

sss

null

3

675.605

683.202

-334.802

669.605

sss

random

6

676.048

691.243

-332.024

664.048

5.557

3

0.135

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

30

3.20 ± 1.20

30

3.30 ± 1.20

0.748

-0.098

recovery_stage_a

2nd

15

3.50 ± 1.20

-0.290

18

3.57 ± 1.20

-0.265

0.859

-0.073

recovery_stage_b

1st

30

17.83 ± 2.73

30

18.03 ± 2.73

0.778

-0.098

recovery_stage_b

2nd

15

17.73 ± 2.63

0.048

18

18.49 ± 2.65

-0.224

0.414

-0.370

ras_confidence

1st

30

29.73 ± 5.00

30

30.73 ± 5.00

0.441

-0.356

ras_confidence

2nd

15

30.25 ± 4.40

-0.182

18

31.29 ± 4.52

-0.200

0.503

-0.373

ras_willingness

1st

30

12.00 ± 2.02

30

12.20 ± 2.02

0.703

-0.196

ras_willingness

2nd

15

11.14 ± 1.73

0.846

18

12.02 ± 1.79

0.172

0.151

-0.870

ras_goal

1st

30

17.47 ± 3.08

30

17.40 ± 3.08

0.933

0.038

ras_goal

2nd

15

16.62 ± 2.73

0.476

18

18.03 ± 2.80

-0.352

0.150

-0.791

ras_reliance

1st

30

13.03 ± 2.82

30

13.53 ± 2.82

0.495

-0.381

ras_reliance

2nd

15

13.27 ± 2.35

-0.184

18

14.49 ± 2.45

-0.733

0.150

-0.930

ras_domination

1st

30

10.53 ± 2.21

30

9.50 ± 2.21

0.074

0.650

ras_domination

2nd

15

10.04 ± 2.10

0.312

18

10.31 ± 2.12

-0.509

0.713

-0.171

symptom

1st

30

29.70 ± 9.80

30

30.20 ± 9.80

0.844

-0.142

symptom

2nd

15

29.05 ± 7.73

0.183

18

29.38 ± 8.19

0.232

0.906

-0.093

slof_work

1st

30

22.40 ± 4.90

30

22.30 ± 4.90

0.937

0.051

slof_work

2nd

15

22.28 ± 3.96

0.060

18

20.98 ± 4.16

0.667

0.362

0.657

slof_relationship

1st

30

25.33 ± 5.93

30

26.00 ± 5.93

0.665

-0.234

slof_relationship

2nd

15

24.15 ± 4.99

0.417

18

25.34 ± 5.20

0.233

0.505

-0.418

satisfaction

1st

30

19.37 ± 6.69

30

22.23 ± 6.69

0.101

-0.728

satisfaction

2nd

15

20.28 ± 5.97

-0.233

18

21.35 ± 6.12

0.224

0.614

-0.271

mhc_emotional

1st

30

10.97 ± 3.68

30

11.53 ± 3.68

0.553

-0.315

mhc_emotional

2nd

15

11.69 ± 3.11

-0.402

18

10.96 ± 3.23

0.318

0.513

0.404

mhc_social

1st

30

14.73 ± 5.33

30

14.23 ± 5.33

0.717

0.163

mhc_social

2nd

15

16.02 ± 4.72

-0.420

18

14.08 ± 4.85

0.051

0.248

0.634

mhc_psychological

1st

30

21.50 ± 6.26

30

22.30 ± 6.26

0.622

-0.237

mhc_psychological

2nd

15

22.51 ± 5.44

-0.298

18

21.15 ± 5.62

0.341

0.484

0.402

resilisnce

1st

30

16.07 ± 4.39

30

16.77 ± 4.39

0.539

-0.328

resilisnce

2nd

15

16.66 ± 3.71

-0.278

18

17.48 ± 3.85

-0.332

0.538

-0.382

social_provision

1st

30

13.40 ± 2.94

30

14.00 ± 2.94

0.432

-0.365

social_provision

2nd

15

12.97 ± 2.58

0.264

18

13.84 ± 2.66

0.099

0.344

-0.529

els_value_living

1st

30

16.67 ± 2.94

30

17.63 ± 2.94

0.207

-0.619

els_value_living

2nd

15

17.30 ± 2.54

-0.407

18

17.79 ± 2.63

-0.098

0.593

-0.310

els_life_fulfill

1st

30

11.73 ± 3.02

30

13.83 ± 3.02

0.009

-1.285

els_life_fulfill

2nd

15

12.89 ± 2.62

-0.705

18

14.03 ± 2.71

-0.122

0.221

-0.701

els

1st

30

28.40 ± 5.29

30

31.47 ± 5.29

0.028

-1.167

els

2nd

15

30.11 ± 4.50

-0.651

18

31.82 ± 4.67

-0.135

0.287

-0.652

social_connect

1st

30

27.17 ± 9.21

30

26.57 ± 9.21

0.802

0.160

social_connect

2nd

15

27.79 ± 7.44

-0.166

18

26.70 ± 7.83

-0.035

0.683

0.292

shs_agency

1st

30

13.50 ± 4.65

30

15.07 ± 4.65

0.196

-0.642

shs_agency

2nd

15

13.91 ± 4.01

-0.167

18

15.68 ± 4.14

-0.251

0.216

-0.726

shs_pathway

1st

30

15.97 ± 3.67

30

17.20 ± 3.67

0.197

-0.731

shs_pathway

2nd

15

16.56 ± 3.05

-0.352

18

17.02 ± 3.19

0.108

0.676

-0.270

shs

1st

30

29.47 ± 7.73

30

32.27 ± 7.73

0.165

-0.772

shs

2nd

15

30.41 ± 6.47

-0.260

18

32.72 ± 6.74

-0.125

0.319

-0.637

esteem

1st

30

12.57 ± 1.22

30

12.47 ± 1.22

0.752

0.084

esteem

2nd

15

13.18 ± 1.24

-0.516

18

12.73 ± 1.24

-0.222

0.302

0.379

mlq_search

1st

30

14.93 ± 3.48

30

14.87 ± 3.48

0.941

0.029

mlq_search

2nd

15

14.90 ± 3.23

0.014

18

14.74 ± 3.28

0.056

0.884

0.071

mlq_presence

1st

30

13.60 ± 4.06

30

13.40 ± 4.06

0.849

0.078

mlq_presence

2nd

15

13.63 ± 3.71

-0.011

18

13.53 ± 3.78

-0.050

0.939

0.039

mlq

1st

30

28.53 ± 6.83

30

28.27 ± 6.83

0.880

0.061

mlq

2nd

15

28.52 ± 6.27

0.003

18

28.25 ± 6.38

0.003

0.904

0.061

empower

1st

30

19.17 ± 4.06

30

19.97 ± 4.06

0.448

-0.398

empower

2nd

15

19.33 ± 3.45

-0.084

18

19.24 ± 3.58

0.361

0.939

0.047

ismi_resistance

1st

30

14.47 ± 2.60

30

14.77 ± 2.60

0.656

-0.153

ismi_resistance

2nd

15

15.02 ± 2.50

-0.282

18

14.67 ± 2.52

0.049

0.691

0.178

ismi_discrimation

1st

30

12.27 ± 3.32

30

10.43 ± 3.32

0.036

1.085

ismi_discrimation

2nd

15

11.33 ± 2.84

0.553

18

10.98 ± 2.94

-0.322

0.727

0.209

sss_affective

1st

30

10.67 ± 3.87

30

9.33 ± 3.87

0.186

0.790

sss_affective

2nd

15

10.69 ± 3.18

-0.011

18

8.51 ± 3.33

0.486

0.059

1.287

sss_behavior

1st

30

10.60 ± 3.91

30

8.87 ± 3.91

0.091

0.946

sss_behavior

2nd

15

10.30 ± 3.27

0.165

18

8.20 ± 3.41

0.361

0.076

1.142

sss_cognitive

1st

30

8.60 ± 4.08

30

7.97 ± 4.08

0.550

0.370

sss_cognitive

2nd

15

9.47 ± 3.32

-0.510

18

7.18 ± 3.49

0.461

0.057

1.341

sss

1st

30

29.87 ± 10.99

30

26.17 ± 10.99

0.197

0.859

sss

2nd

15

30.52 ± 8.82

-0.153

18

23.90 ± 9.29

0.527

0.039

1.539

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(84.60) = 0.32, p = 0.748, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.72)

2st

t(88.71) = 0.18, p = 0.859, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.91)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(78.89) = 0.28, p = 0.778, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.61)

2st

t(88.73) = 0.82, p = 0.414, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-1.08 to 2.59)

ras_confidence

1st

t(69.24) = 0.77, p = 0.441, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-1.57 to 3.57)

2st

t(88.65) = 0.67, p = 0.503, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-2.05 to 4.14)

ras_willingness

1st

t(66.85) = 0.38, p = 0.703, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.24)

2st

t(87.54) = 1.45, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-0.33 to 2.11)

ras_goal

1st

t(69.87) = -0.08, p = 0.933, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.65 to 1.52)

2st

t(88.79) = 1.45, p = 0.150, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (-0.52 to 3.32)

ras_reliance

1st

t(65.41) = 0.69, p = 0.495, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.95)

2st

t(86.18) = 1.45, p = 0.150, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (-0.45 to 2.89)

ras_domination

1st

t(77.28) = -1.81, p = 0.074, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-2.17 to 0.10)

2st

t(88.81) = 0.37, p = 0.713, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.19 to 1.74)

symptom

1st

t(62.28) = 0.20, p = 0.844, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-4.56 to 5.56)

2st

t(79.83) = 0.12, p = 0.906, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-5.20 to 5.85)

slof_work

1st

t(63.45) = -0.08, p = 0.937, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.63 to 2.43)

2st

t(82.90) = -0.92, p = 0.362, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-4.12 to 1.52)

slof_relationship

1st

t(65.92) = 0.44, p = 0.665, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-2.39 to 3.73)

2st

t(86.74) = 0.67, p = 0.505, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-2.34 to 4.73)

satisfaction

1st

t(70.46) = 1.66, p = 0.101, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-0.58 to 6.31)

2st

t(88.88) = 0.51, p = 0.614, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-3.12 to 5.26)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(66.25) = 0.60, p = 0.553, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.33 to 2.46)

2st

t(87.06) = -0.66, p = 0.513, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-2.93 to 1.47)

mhc_social

1st

t(69.82) = -0.36, p = 0.717, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-3.24 to 2.24)

2st

t(88.78) = -1.16, p = 0.248, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-5.26 to 1.38)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(68.26) = 0.49, p = 0.622, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-2.43 to 4.03)

2st

t(88.32) = -0.70, p = 0.484, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-5.19 to 2.48)

resilisnce

1st

t(66.18) = 0.62, p = 0.539, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-1.56 to 2.96)

2st

t(86.99) = 0.62, p = 0.538, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.81 to 3.44)

social_provision

1st

t(69.10) = 0.79, p = 0.432, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.12)

2st

t(88.61) = 0.95, p = 0.344, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.95 to 2.69)

els_value_living

1st

t(67.93) = 1.27, p = 0.207, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.55 to 2.48)

2st

t(88.18) = 0.54, p = 0.593, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-1.31 to 2.28)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(68.37) = 2.70, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -1.28, 95% CI (0.55 to 3.65)

2st

t(88.37) = 1.23, p = 0.221, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-0.70 to 3.00)

els

1st

t(66.54) = 2.24, p = 0.028, Cohen d = -1.17, 95% CI (0.34 to 5.80)

2st

t(87.30) = 1.07, p = 0.287, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-1.47 to 4.89)

social_connect

1st

t(63.53) = -0.25, p = 0.802, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-5.35 to 4.15)

2st

t(83.08) = -0.41, p = 0.683, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-6.39 to 4.21)

shs_agency

1st

t(67.66) = 1.31, p = 0.196, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-0.83 to 3.96)

2st

t(88.04) = 1.25, p = 0.216, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-1.06 to 4.60)

shs_pathway

1st

t(65.25) = 1.30, p = 0.197, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-0.66 to 3.12)

2st

t(85.97) = 0.42, p = 0.676, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.71 to 2.62)

shs

1st

t(65.56) = 1.40, p = 0.165, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-1.18 to 6.78)

2st

t(86.35) = 1.00, p = 0.319, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-2.27 to 6.89)

esteem

1st

t(88.80) = -0.32, p = 0.752, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.73 to 0.53)

2st

t(88.98) = -1.04, p = 0.302, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.31 to 0.41)

mlq_search

1st

t(74.66) = -0.07, p = 0.941, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.86 to 1.72)

2st

t(88.94) = -0.15, p = 0.884, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-2.43 to 2.10)

mlq_presence

1st

t(72.64) = -0.19, p = 0.849, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-2.29 to 1.89)

2st

t(89.00) = -0.08, p = 0.939, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-2.70 to 2.50)

mlq

1st

t(73.21) = -0.15, p = 0.880, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-3.78 to 3.25)

2st

t(88.99) = -0.12, p = 0.904, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-4.66 to 4.12)

empower

1st

t(66.51) = 0.76, p = 0.448, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.29 to 2.89)

2st

t(87.28) = -0.08, p = 0.939, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.53 to 2.34)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(79.45) = 0.45, p = 0.656, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.03 to 1.63)

2st

t(88.71) = -0.40, p = 0.691, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.10 to 1.40)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(67.00) = -2.14, p = 0.036, Cohen d = 1.08, 95% CI (-3.55 to -0.12)

2st

t(87.65) = -0.35, p = 0.727, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-2.36 to 1.65)

sss_affective

1st

t(64.46) = -1.34, p = 0.186, Cohen d = 0.79, 95% CI (-3.33 to 0.66)

2st

t(84.84) = -1.91, p = 0.059, Cohen d = 1.29, 95% CI (-4.43 to 0.08)

sss_behavior

1st

t(65.51) = -1.72, p = 0.091, Cohen d = 0.95, 95% CI (-3.75 to 0.28)

2st

t(86.30) = -1.79, p = 0.076, Cohen d = 1.14, 95% CI (-4.41 to 0.23)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(63.91) = -0.60, p = 0.550, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-2.74 to 1.47)

2st

t(83.86) = -1.93, p = 0.057, Cohen d = 1.34, 95% CI (-4.66 to 0.07)

sss

1st

t(63.12) = -1.30, p = 0.197, Cohen d = 0.86, 95% CI (-9.37 to 1.97)

2st

t(82.13) = -2.10, p = 0.039, Cohen d = 1.54, 95% CI (-12.91 to -0.34)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(43.27) = 0.85, p = 0.798, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.37 to 0.91)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(39.91) = 0.71, p = 0.969, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.77)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(35.54) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.29 to 2.41)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(34.55) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.50)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(35.80) = 1.09, p = 0.568, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.79)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(33.97) = 2.24, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.83)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(39.11) = 1.60, p = 0.236, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.21 to 1.83)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(32.71) = -0.70, p = 0.975, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-3.19 to 1.55)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(33.18) = -2.03, p = 0.101, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-2.64 to 0.00)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(34.18) = -0.71, p = 0.963, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.55 to 1.23)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(36.06) = -0.69, p = 0.987, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-3.46 to 1.70)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(34.31) = -0.97, p = 0.675, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.76 to 0.62)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(35.78) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.17 to 1.86)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(35.13) = -1.05, p = 0.603, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-3.38 to 1.08)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(34.28) = 1.02, p = 0.634, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.71 to 2.13)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(35.48) = -0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.25 to 0.92)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(35.00) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.88 to 1.18)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(35.18) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.88 to 1.28)

els

1st vs 2st

t(34.43) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.39 to 2.10)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(33.21) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.37 to 2.63)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(34.89) = 0.77, p = 0.892, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.00 to 2.22)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(33.90) = -0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.31 to 0.94)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(34.03) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.96 to 2.86)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(48.01) = 0.73, p = 0.935, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.99)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(37.89) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.65 to 1.38)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(36.99) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.55 to 1.81)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(37.24) = -0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-2.88 to 2.85)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(34.42) = -1.10, p = 0.554, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.06 to 0.61)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(40.20) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.35 to 1.16)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(34.62) = 0.99, p = 0.661, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.66)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(33.59) = -1.48, p = 0.296, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.95 to 0.31)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(34.01) = -1.10, p = 0.555, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.88 to 0.56)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(33.36) = -1.40, p = 0.339, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-1.93 to 0.35)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(33.05) = -1.60, p = 0.238, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-5.15 to 0.61)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(46.78) = 0.87, p = 0.781, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.39 to 0.98)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(42.43) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.31)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(36.77) = 0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.50 to 2.52)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(35.50) = -2.38, p = 0.046, Cohen d = 0.85, 95% CI (-1.60 to -0.13)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(37.11) = -1.35, p = 0.369, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-2.11 to 0.42)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(34.76) = 0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.19)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(41.39) = -0.91, p = 0.738, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.60 to 0.61)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(33.15) = -0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-3.23 to 1.94)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(33.75) = -0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.56 to 1.32)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(35.02) = -1.17, p = 0.500, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-3.25 to 0.87)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(37.43) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.89 to 3.72)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(35.19) = 1.13, p = 0.533, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.02)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(37.08) = 1.19, p = 0.481, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.90 to 3.47)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(36.24) = 0.84, p = 0.811, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.42 to 3.43)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(35.15) = 0.78, p = 0.882, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.95 to 2.14)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(36.69) = -0.75, p = 0.920, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.61 to 0.74)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(36.07) = 1.15, p = 0.515, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.76)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(36.31) = 1.99, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-0.02 to 2.33)

els

1st vs 2st

t(35.34) = 1.83, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.19 to 3.61)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(33.79) = 0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-2.11 to 3.35)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(35.93) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.35 to 2.16)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(34.67) = 0.99, p = 0.661, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.82)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(34.83) = 0.73, p = 0.942, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.68 to 3.57)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(52.81) = 1.60, p = 0.232, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.38)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(39.80) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.67 to 1.61)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(38.64) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.79 to 1.85)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(38.96) = -0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-3.12 to 3.09)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(35.32) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.62)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(42.80) = 0.82, p = 0.828, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.91)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(35.58) = -1.56, p = 0.256, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-2.15 to 0.28)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(34.26) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.25)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(34.81) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.63 to 1.02)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(33.98) = 1.42, p = 0.328, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.37 to 2.12)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(33.58) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-2.49 to 3.80)

Plot

Clinical significance